Rakesh Kumar vs State of Punjab and ors.

G.S. Chahal, J.

By means of this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 14 date 26.1.83, Annexure PI, registered at Police Station Mohali and the charge sheet P2 framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar under Sections 7, Essential Commodities Act and sections 468/471/420 and 120B, IPC.

The case was registered on the information that trucks were being taken for exporting rice out of Punjab. A Naka was then fixed and trucks No. PUR 5105 driven by Ajmer Singh; PBV 2631 driven by Karam Singh and PBR 3937 driven by Kuldip Singh were apprehended. Rakesh Kumar and Satish Kumar sons of Surinder Kumar were stated to be travelling with those trucks. It was alleged that they were carrying forged documents, authorising them to export rice. The charge was framed on the basis that the petitioners were accompanying the trucks, carrying the rice and they had permits which were not valid having been extended by one Pritam Singh who was not authorised to do so. It is alleged that the petitioners had controverted the export order issued by the State of Punjab in 1981 and contravention of the same amounts to an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

It has been averred in the criminal miscellaneous that the trucks were impugned within the area of Mohali, Phase V which fell within the State of Punjab and that the said spot was not within or near the Union Territory Chandigarh and as such, the bringing of the rice to that spot did not amount to violation of the Control

No reply has been filed by the respondent State inspite of opportunities allowed, as such, the facts stated in the petition are deemed to be correct.

The term `Export'' has been defined in clause 2(a) of the Punjab Paddy/Rice (Export and Import Control) JUDGMENT 1981 and the same reads as under :

"2(a) `export'' means to take or cause to be taken, by any means whatsoever out of any place with in the State of Punjab to any place outside the State." It is not claimed by the prosecution that the petitioners had, infact, taken any steps in the form of an attempt to cross the border of the Punjab State into the Union Territory Chandigarh.

In Malkit Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 613 it had been held that an attempt to commit the offence is a direct movement towards the commission after the preparations are made. In order that a person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, he must be shown first to have an intention to commit the offence and secondly to have done an act which constitutes the actus revs of a criminal attempt.

It was further observed as under :

"In the present case it is quite possible that the appellants may have been warned that they, had not licence to carry the paddy and they may have changed their mind at any place between Samalkha Barrier and the Delhi Punjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their journey."

InBanarsi Dass v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent CR 418 , Harbans Singh Rai, J., following the above quoted authority, held that where the Haryana Border was 100 yards away from the place of interception of the truck carrying banned commodity without any permit no offence could be held to have been proved. The principles of the above authorities apply on all fours to the facts of the present case. I hereby quash the impugned FIR and the consequent proceedings. The criminal miscellaneous is allowed accordingly.

Misc allowed.